CIVIL RICHTS 




SPEECH 


HON. 


OF 



JAMES L. ALCORN, 


OF MISSISSIPPI, 


IN THE 


UNITED STATES SENATE, 


MAY 23, 1874. 



^ WASHINGTON: 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 

1874 . 




V 


* 'V ' ■ •• 


■') 


A . '» 

/* m • A. « 


'i » 3 L * 



' 


« 


» 

/ *.f .t 


t • 




% . 



. V.' 

•A* 


I ’ ■’ I 


y? 


I • iV u ‘ , t 


*» 


• k 


t 4 u 

« I ^4 , 


/ 


V • » • 

* I 


'»•. '» S 


i'/' ■ 

■Mv r .- 


1 


•' > 


■-:i 






s . 

At ' 

i .' 

v..\ ' 

9 i‘' 


iV 

k 

' y ‘ 


I 






» » ' 




’0^ 




• , \ T' -4 


.,1 ^ f -. 


j:. VjiV •►/t" ^ 

’ ■' y ' ■ -y 

t3fe'Y''xi' '*' .1' • ,' ■ > 




r* 






-'■■'■■■ .. . 

.... . 


' f » 


J 


/• 


. •/ /J- 


• * 


A . , t 


i«* ‘-1 

■; * 


imp'.' 

*t‘ •: A■ ..\'>'V-' ■ ■ - ^ 


A 


*Li 


^ v 




I > 


/*' 5 ' 


• • .«^4 


. ■'• . v .'-yAv. 

Tr#/,y:^ • r*.4. i' ‘ \ ' ‘. .,i', .*,•>». » # ♦ ^ i 


r- -, ''. 


X*' I: 



, yr’ • 

TT,, - 

^:':AA'' ''• "' ■ 


r ^ ^ 


.y\/ >'t. 


V. 

.14 


/ <■ 


,' L u «i 

<■ ■ •^. 4 .* 


■ n , 

. / 


r> 


*jrOvv . f,. 

'1 •■.•.''< . 


'■# • ;■ ' 

V ':,v 




»* 


1 ‘ * • i . 

* 'r . ' 1 ' ' { 

.’ ‘A*.', :. ■ v^: 

X<'r /‘ w. 


f t 


|■••/'• u ■. . ; !• 

"y *-; ' [y ■’ 

V. "vl^il-V.vJy^YAV. ^■ 


.-V 

- • , 

w ’.■ 

a' 


. n/i#' ♦ 

rift?.; 


. ,; V.. ■? j, t'^ »;-'''<wV'.»^. ' ''. £•'•.* 


‘ ,V V'»r . 4 

^A* ' y'A'- ■ 

. r V;::,.*J,,, 

* • ■' / '.( . . - v < -M / •, ' 

' "■ ■/ - . ■■ /“ ■ ■ .'-V'- j ■ ' , 

. ■ ■ .'♦ '* ’''•' . 

• ’ • , A 1 .* 


, >. i'^ . . 

‘ ff » T . V 


11 < 


f '-l: 




•V 

-f 


t <• 


44 . 


I '■ 




'/■ 


, i< 

< ; 


* ’> • t 

» 4 •< I 


f, 

'.•, I'r 

/;/ . f>/:.. •, .:■ 


'* . ■ 


f- • .'i.‘. 

• v» 


.vj 


..M- A A.' ■ 

y. '■ .;i.y:y„ 

' ' I ■' I .f « • \ ' ' 

.', . ‘ * ' ' - • ': ^ 

■ '/’■ *' ‘ ^ ' 

* ' ■ j* ’^v.A. 

■ •. • 'f/•AiSV''''’ / **. ‘ ■, ^ 


• »i 


• .H'f 



SPEECH 


OF 

HON. JAMES L. ALCORN. 


The Senate having under consideration the bill (S. No. 1) supplementary to the 
»ct entitled “An act to protect allcitizen.s of the United States in their civil rights 
and to furnish the means for their vindication,” passed April 9, 1866— 

Mr. ALCORN said: 

Mr. President: I did not intend to ap])ear before the Senate in the 
capacity of a speaker upon this occasion; but I have concluded that I 
could not well discharge the duty which I owe to my constituents 
without being heard upon the billViow under consideration. 

It has been said that there are those advocating the passage of this 
bill who do not desire that it should become a law. I cannot say how 
true that is. I can only speak for myself, that while I advocate it, 1 
desire in my soul that it should become the law of this land, and 1 
have reasons for this declaration and for this desire. I represent in 
my person and the cause which I advocate to-day strongly the result 
of the revolution in which we have been engaged. Prom the South 
I come. From among the slave-holding class I come. Born in the 
midst of slavery, identified all my life with the institution, a rebel in 
the revolution, to-day an advocate for the civil-rights bill, am I 
prompted by the desire to secure the colored vote, as has been charged 
to those who support this bill? If moved by no higher considera¬ 
tion than this, then my position here and my advocacy of this bill 
would be deplorable indeed; But I am moved, I trust, by higher con¬ 
siderations than these. Let me now, in order that I may be under¬ 
stood, state the conditions upon which I stand here. 

The negro has been characterized here as an inferior race. Yes, he 
is inferior in point of education, and I may say in point of numbers, 
in this nation of ours. Inferior though he be, he controls the destiny 
of the State from which I come. The power of the Legislature of Mis¬ 
sissippi, the political sovereiguty of that State, is to-day in the hands 
of this race. The taxing power belongs to him, the power to legis¬ 
late with regard to my property, and every right that I enjoy under the 
guarantees of tlie State constitution is held at the hands of the negro 
race, a government of the people, subject to their will in its funda¬ 
mental and its statute law, what checks and balances have we save 
those limitations prescribed in the Constitution of the United States? 
The executive, the judicial, and the ministerial officers of the State 
are all chosen, if not directly indirectly, by the colored people of that 
State. I here declare myself in favor of that policy which that col¬ 
ored man declares is necessary to the protection of his race through¬ 
out the Union. We need no civil-rights bill there. So far as Mississippi 
is concerned, we have a civil-rights bill of our own more stringent 
than any you will y)ass in this Congress, its penalties more severe, its 




4 


workings more in detail—complete in itself for the protection of tli»- 
colored people. They stand here through their representative declar¬ 
ing that so far as Mississippi is concerned they desire no legislation 
upon the part of Congress; they are able to take care of themselves. 
But they do demand that their race shall be recognized in every State 
in this Union as they are recognized in the State of Mississii)X)i. 
Brought under the rule, by reason of the revolution, of the colored 
people of Mississippi, is it strange that I should advocate a bill guar¬ 
anteeing the personal rights of the citizen throughout the nation ? 

Sir, self-i)rotection, if I had no higher consideration, would move 
me to advocate the passage of this bill, not in the limited sense in 
which the bill is now iiresented to the Senate, but in that fuller and 
more comprehensive sense in which I hojie to see it made before it 
is submitted to the vote of the Senate. The people of my State 
demand that they shall have all that the fundamental law guarantees 
to citizens of the land. There is in this demand a signihcation that 
I need not elaborate. 

Was the Government under which we live changed by reason of 
the revolution; as a result of the revolution*? Did not the thirteenth,^ 
the fourteenth, and the fifteenth amendments change the form of thia 
Government? Tliey extended the limits of this Government; they 
gave an increased power to this Government; and they gave a force 
to this Government that it did not possess until the revolution had 
decided in favor of the Federal interpretation of the Constitution. 
The Constitution of the United States was the emanation of a ram 
order of political intelligence. Clashes of thought, feeling, and inter¬ 
est gave form to its text. As the ])eautif ul colors are reflected through 
a prism, so .were the ditferent castes of mind, heart, and purpose en¬ 
tering into its i)rovisions reflected into the Constitution of the United 
States as it existed when the war began. The federal principle lay 
in that Constitution side by side with the doctrine of the sovereignty 
of the States, and no sooner had the Government begun its operations 
than the antagonisms thus reposing side by side in that instrument 
arose as opposing forces, were debated for years in Congress and be¬ 
fore the people, were finally adjourned to the arbitrament of war, 
and after a most bloody conflict were decided in favor of the federitl 
principle; and the Constitution for the first time in the history of 
this country became harmonious, smooth, and even in its working. 
The principle of the sovereignty of the States was struck down, and 
under the fourteenth amendment'the citizen of the State was declare<l 
to be a citizen of the United States, and it was the fourteenth amend¬ 
ment to the Constitution of the United States that gave form to and 
that created the being whom you call a citizen of the United States. 
Those guarantees that were given ju-evious to the war and secured to 
the citizen by the ditferent State constitutions were now confided as 
a result of the war to the United States. When the slave was touched 
by the results of the revolution ho became a new being; he became a 
citizen of the United States residing in the States of this Union ; his 
rights, his privileges, his immunities then belonge<l to him as a citizen 
of the United States, and were explicitly guaranteed by the amended 
Constitution. Am I correct in this ? 

I listened with interest to the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Howk] 
just a moment ago when he was descanting on the fugitive-slave hiAv, 
and I was struck with the harmony that existed at the time that law 
was passed and was being executed between the extreme sections of 
this country with regard to the powers of Government. The Const!*- 
tution of the United States read by him declared in these words: 

No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escapiut; 


o 


iuto another, shall in consequence of anj law or regulation therein be discharged 
Ironi such service or labor, but shall bo delivered up ou claim of the party to whom 
jsnch service or labor may be due. 

While the honorable Senator was speaking I sent for the Globe, for 
tbe purpose of showing how the extreme northern and southern view 
harmonized in construing the powers of the Government. To show 
that he is correct in presenting the view common to the extreme 
sections when he asserts the fact that no power was lodged in Con- 
jgrcss to enforce the provisions of that article in the Constitution, I 
send to the desk and ask the Clerk to read from a speech delivered 
by Hon. Jefferson Davis, of Mississippi, upon the occasion of the mob 
in Boston, to which the honorable Senator has referred, at the time 
the fugitive slave Burns was arrested. I read it to show the opinion 
of Mr. Davis at that time, who was a leader of the South, upon the 
subject of the power of Congress to enforce the fugitive-slave law. 

The Chief Clerk read as follows : 

The Government of the United States has power to suppress insurrection and to 
repel invasion. What insurrection do you suppose is contemplated ? Only insur¬ 
rection against the authority of a State in which civil government shall be par¬ 
alyzed by phvsical power. The occasion, too, must be sudden and ephemeral. If 
the masses of any State choose, they have the power, and it is undeniable, to change 
their whole form of government. An insurrection, then, must be one against a 
State, and a State may seek the aid of the Federal Government to justify it in in¬ 
troducing its power in the State for the purpose of suppressing insurrection. In 
the better days of the Republic, may I not say the purer days of the Republic, the 
militia of the States were relied upon for the enforcement of the laws against those 
who resisted them within the borders of the States. Thus General Wa.shington’s 
Secretary of War called on the militia of Pennsylvania to put down the whisky 
insuiTection. He did not call on the Army and Navy of the United States. 

But, sir, the case in Boston seems to be the legitimate result of an event which 
■ occurred not long since, when the officers failed to do their duty, and the marshal 
who so failed was not removed. What was this but a direct encouragement to a 
free-negio mob to set aside the law and to oppose the officers if they attempted to 
execute it ? I am not one of those, however anxious I may be to see this law en- 
fwvjed, who would advocate the use of the Army to secure its enforcement. I hold 
that when any State in this Union shall choose to set aside the law it is within her 
sovereignty, and beyond our power. I hold that it would be a total subversion of 
the principles of our Government if the strong arm of the United States is to be 
brought to crush the known will of the people of any State in this Union. Such is 
my theory of this Government. 

* Mr. ALCORN. We see tliat Mr. Davis declared that however anx¬ 
ious he was to see the law executed he would not favor so extreme a 
measure as sending the troops of the United States to Boston for the 
purpose of arresting the fugitive slave Burns. And in following up 
this ox^inion held in the North, Wisconsin, the State from which 
my honorable friend comes, declared by a decision of the suimeme 
court of that State that the fugitive-slave law was unconstitutional, 
and that its x)rovisions should not be enforced within its jurisdiction; 
and following this, that State passed liberty bills and declared that 
no fugitive should be arrested within her borders; and many of the 
Northern States, taking a similar view, passed like bills in defiance of 
the fugitive-slave law, and declared that their citizens should not bo 
held liable for violations of that law. 

This simi)ly showed the inharmony of the Government. It did not 
take the eye of a i)rophet to see that a government like this could 
not long continue to exist; that one or the other of these forces must 
triumph; that either disunion must take place peaceably, or that war 
must come. The States declared—and they had the power if not the 
right under the Constitution to declare—that they would not enforce 
the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, and there 
'existed no j^ower in Congress to coerce them, What, then, was to be- 




come of tlie Govemnient ? It must ^o to pieces, or it must vindicate 
itself in sufficient strength to establish and maintain it. 

Here is another clause in tlie Constitution that I will read now for 
the purpose of enforcing what I say. It exists and is in full force 
to-day: 

A person cliargeil in any State with treason, felony, or otlier crime who shall flee 
from justice, and he found in another State, shall on demand of the executive 
authority of the State from wliich he fled be delivered to be removed to the 
State having jurisdiction of the crime. 

There is a plain provision of the Constitution. ISTow su})pose tlie 
governor of the State of Florida, as he to-day does, shall refuse to 
give up a person who is indicted for a felony in the State of North 
Carolina. The governor of the State of North Carolina has power 
to demand him as he does, but the felon is not delivered up; the 
criminal is not surrendered. If you were to undertake to give force 
and vitality to this provision of the Constitution by an enactment 
of Congress, I apprehend you Avould be met on this floor successfully 
with a denial of the power to pass and enforce any such law. It 
would be declared to be an invasion of State-rights—whatever of State- 
right8,is left—for some still insist we have State-rights; and wmuld 
not Senators on both sides of this Chamber declare that there was no 
power in this Government to go with the Army under a law of Con¬ 
gress to take an escaped felon from the protection of one governor to 
surrender him to another f But if this provision of the Constitution 
was followed by a clause declaring that Congress should have power 
to enforce this i>rovision by appropriate legislation, then our way Avould 
be clear and the duty would be unmistakable. 

When the thirteenth amendment came, declaring that slavery and 
involuntary servitude should no longer exist, it was followed by a 
clause declaring that Congress should have power to enforce the arti¬ 
cle by appropriate legislation, using the strongest language known 
to the vocabulary. It was the first time that the Constitution, had 
declared that Congress should have jiower to enforce any of the pro¬ 
visions of the Constitution of the United States. It is true that un¬ 
der the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution which 
says that Congress is “ to make all laws which shall be necessary and 
proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers and all pow¬ 
ers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United 
States, or in any department or officer thereof,” Congress had the 
power to pass laws; but how could Congress enforce those laws I 
Suppose wffien Congress passed a law attaching to the citizens of the 
State, the State should throw the arm of sovereign protection around 
the citizen to shield him from the legislation Avhich Congress had 
deemed proper to pass, where was the power in this Government be¬ 
fore the war to enforce it ? It was denied. And so it was that 
there was no vitality or force existing in the Government before the 
adoption of the thirteenth amendment to enforce the provisions of 
the Constitution itself. Although it was decided by the Supreme 
Court that there was sueh a being as a citizen of the United States, 
when you undertook to trace the existence of that being he was very 
distant. Was a citizen of the District of Columbia a citizen of the 
United States? He did not live in any one of the States. Was a cit¬ 
izen of a Territory a citizen of the United States? He did not live 
in any one of the States of the Union. A citizen of the United States 
was one declared to be by the courts a citizen of one of the States of 
the Union. But the Constitution comes after the war, and it enlarges 
altogether the citizenship and declares that there is such a being as 




7 


A citizen of the United States, and that a man bora or naturalized 
here is a citizen of the United States, wherever you find the juris¬ 
diction of the United States extending, the conditions of citizenship 
being otherwise complied with. 

I have said that with the amendments came the clause, “ The Con¬ 
gress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the pro¬ 
visions of this article.” How enforce it ? If Congress has the power 
to enforce it, must not Congress be left to judge of the manner of 
enforcing it ? Is not the question of enforcement a question that 
belongs to Congress itself ? If the fourteenth amendment made no 
change and conferred no greater powers upon the Congress of the 
United States than existed before, why was it necessary in that 
amendment to declare that “ all persons born or naturalized in the 
United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of 
the United States and of the State wherein they reside?” Why 
was it necessary to enact and recite the following: “No State shall 
make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or im¬ 
munities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State de¬ 
prive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of 
law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protec¬ 
tion of the laws?” It had been declared by the Constitution, as it ex¬ 
isted before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, that “ the 
citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and im¬ 
munities of citizens in the several States.” Now, the recitation of 
these guarantees and limitations in the fourteenth amendment was 
made for no other purpose than to bring them unmistakably under 
the jurisdiction of Congress, that they might be held subject to that 
clause of the amendment which declared the power of Congress to 
enforce by appropriate legislation the rights, i)rivilege8, and immu¬ 
nities set forth. 

Congress, remember, under this article, has power to enforce the 
provisions of the article. Who is left to judge when these privileges 
are invaded or denied by the States ? The Congress of the United 
States. This is the tribunal. The power belongs to Congress; it 
rests with Congress; and whenever Congress in its judgment may 
decide that the citizen is deprived of any of his liberties, rights, priv¬ 
ileges, and immunities. Congress can step in under this article of the 
Constitution, guarantee them to him by enactment, and enforce the 
enactment by calling on the power of this nation, its Army and its 
Navy. By the adoption of the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth 
amendments the Constitution of the United States was changed; the 
2 )Owers of the Government were enlarged. There can be no secession 
now. The Governihent of the United States is the sovereign. I will 
not say that centralization is complete, for that might bo offensive, 
but I am here to declare the unmistakable strength of the Govern¬ 
ment, and its undoubted and unlimited power over the questions now 
under debate. 

But it has been said that this bill if passed by Congress will bring 
about social equality; that this law is degrading to the white race. 
I deny this. Society exists and is governed by its own laws. They 
are unwritten, but they are none the less determinedly maintained. 
The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Stockton] this morning said that 
it brought the degraded race to a level with that of the most exalted. 
I do not quote his language but the idea. That is true as far as law 
can ruake it so. The war in one fell swoop leveled all distinctions 
between the most exalted citizen and the humblest slave from whose 
limbs tfie shackles fell by the touch of the emancipation proclama- 


8 


tion. To-day we stand one people equal before the law. There is no 
middle ground to occupy. 

But, sir, it is said that there is no necessity for this bill, and the deci¬ 
sion in thQ Slaughter-house case is read for the purpose of showing that 
the bill is unconstitutional. I am very free to admit that if the court 
had had this case before them and had decided precisely what they 
did decide in the Slaughter-house case, then the argument of the 
gentleman is very plausible indeed. I would not be prepared to 
dissent from the conclusion he draws from that decision. But there 
was no case like this before the Supreme Court at the time of this 
Slaughter-house decision. The rights of tlie colored people were 
not involved in that decision. It was a mere obiter dictum on the 
part of the court on a case that was not before them. But to-day we 
stand without reference to the decision of the Supreme Court. This 
is one branch of this Government, the legislative department; the 
judiciary is another branch; and we go forward without regard to 
the opinions of each other unless those opinions have taken the form 
of judicial decision rendered in answer to the demands of a case 
properly brought before the court. 

Mr. Justice Miller in delivering the opinion of the Supreme Court 
in the Slaughter-house case sets forth the fact that the citizen of the 
United States is entitled to the protection of the Government, and 
that it is the duty of the Congress of the United States to giv^e that 
protection. Beading of the case of Crandall vs. Nevada, the opinion 
says: 

It is said to be the ri.eht of the citizen of this groat country, protected by implied 
guarantees of its Constitution “to come to the seat of Government to assert any 
claim he may have upon that Government, to transact any business he may have 
with it, to seek its protection, to share its offices, to engage in administering its 
functions. He has the right of free access to its sea-poiis, through which all oper¬ 
ations of foreign commerce are conducted, to the sub-treasuries, land offices, and 
courts of justice in the several States. And quoting from the language of Chief 
Justice Taney in another case, it is said “ that for all the great purposes for which 
the Federal Government was established, we are one people, with one common 
country, we are all citizens of the United States; ” and it is as such citizens, that 
their rights are supported in this court. 

Very well, the citizen bas a right then to come here—to travel. 
That implies his right to free travel. But suppose the railroads of 
the different States should deny the colored man the right to travel. 
Suppose they say he shall ride in a box-car, or that he shall ride 
upon a platform-car, or suppose they say he shall not ride at all. 
Here are thoroughfares chartered by the different States. He has the 
right guaranteed to him of free transit through the country. Are 
we told that it would be unconstitutional for Congress to interpose 
and say that he may travel, being a citizen of the IJnited States, pre¬ 
cisely as other people travel f If he cannot travel precisely as other 
people travel, where does the distinction stop ? Under onr theory of 
government, if the right of travel is guaranteed, where can you make 
the distinction ? Where can you put the limitation ? What does the 
bill under consideration do ? It declares that he shall travel just 
like other people; no more and no less. Where is the great wrong that 
is done to the white race in declaring that the colored man who is a 
citizen of the nation shall travel just like other people travel ? Does 
it wrong anybody f Is the right of any one invaded by this f 

But, says the Senator from New Jersey, you invade burial-grounds 
Well, sir, we say that he shall have the right of burial in a public 
burial-ground. Suppose a citizen of my State having traveled here, 
the right of travel being guaranteed to him, has reached the city of 
Washington and after arriving here dies, where will you bury him? 


I 


0 


You cannot go into a private burying-ground for the purpose of 
finding a resting-place. You cannot go on tlie private property of 
any citizen and say “ we will bury him here.” Where shall the col¬ 
ored man find a burial-place ? Not in a private burial-ground. O 
no; he cannot go there. Not on private property; he cannot go 
there. Well, are we to be told that the Congress of the United States 
shall not have power to declare that this man shall have a right of 
burial in a public burial-ground of the District of Columbia ? This 
is a strange Government if the Congress of the United States cannot 
guarantee to the citizen this right; and that is all there is in that 
provision of the bill; simply that in public cemeteries, ground kept 
up by taxation, owned by companies that are chartered, and are pro¬ 
tected by the law, the colored man shall have a right to be buried 
the same as a white man. Suppose this burial-ground shall be in¬ 
vaded by mob violence and you call on the militia to protect it, who 
is called upon? The citizen of the United States, the posse comitatus 
or the militia if you please, and the colored man composes part of 
these. The colored man is called upon to come forward and bare his 
bosom to the danger of protecting this public property, for the pub¬ 
lic property is under the protection of the Government. He must go 
there to defend it. Shall a law exist that he shall not bo buried there 
if he should fall in the act of protecting the property itself ? Does 
it not belong to the Government of the United States when his right 
is contested to declare that in the public burial-ground he shall have 
the right of burial ? 

Mr. President, the South does itself injustice when it comes here to 
make objection to this bill upon the clause which I have mentioned. 
In many an old family burial-ground in the South you will rind a 
tablet erected to the memory of some faithful servant, some faith¬ 
ful slave who served the family in days past, and has now gone to 
rest, resting there in the burial-ground by the side of the members 
of the once happy family. Throughout all the land you can find 
the evidences of the affection that existed between the races in the 
days of slavery. Ah, Mr. President, I said to you awhile ago that 
I was born in the midst of slavery. Yes, sir, I was. I was trans¬ 
ferred to the arms of a colored nurse. I dre w in my inf ancy fronnthe 
bosom of that colored nurse the nourishment upon which I fattened 
and grew. That colored nurse watched over my childhood. She 
watched me iu my early manhood. She lives to-day in my own fam¬ 
ily, a favorite member of that family, having belonged to four gen¬ 
erations of my race as a slave. In her decrepit old age she is led by 
my little children, who love her as I loved her, whose hearts dwell 
with her as mine lias ever dwelt. Shall I say that when she dies I 
would be dishonored were her remains to bo placed in my burial- 
ground ? Ah, no sir, for her aged husband who lived with her for 
fifty years, a faithful and affectionate servant of my ancestors, and 
who died before the war began, rests to-day in the family burial- 
ground, near where my honored father and mother sleep. 

Mr. President, slavery is forever dead. Though flowers may not be 
strewn upon its tomb as they were on the tomb of Nero, freedom can 
Avell afford to bend over it and pay its memory the tribute of justice. 

The southern people were not more responsible for slavery than 
were the iieople of the North. Born a slaveholder, I was no more 
responsible for the institution than the man who was born in Massa¬ 
chusetts. It was an institution of the country; it belonged to the na¬ 
tion ; it was protected by the laws of the land—a property that had been 
established in the colored man by our forefathers. Eighty years ago 


10 


we find tliat Indiana, i)i-otected tliougli it was as a Territory by the Or¬ 
dinance of 1787, possessed one hundred and ninety slaves; we find that 
the State of New Hampshire had one hundred and fifty-eight slaves ; 
Rhode Island had one thousand slaves; Connecticut had three thou¬ 
sand slaves; Pennsylvania had four thousand slaves; New Jersey 
had eleven thousand slaves, and New York had twenty-one thousand 
slaves. These slaves were not set free. They under the law of the 
land Avere sold to the people of the South, and they were sold as bar¬ 
barians, and they Avere a barbarous race at the time they came to 
the South; and I may say we can trace our own origin to barbarous 
races. They Avere held by the South for from fifty to seventy years 
as slawes; they were christianized, they were civilized, and Avhen 
they Avere made free this nation, which had in its keeping the protec¬ 
tion of the liberties of the people, declared that they had been so far 
civilized under the refining teachings and infiuences of the southern 
])eople as to be entitled to the high prerogativ^e of citizePs of this 
nation. They were admitted as citizens, and it Avas a compliment; it 
spoke much for the teachings of shiAmry and for the peculiar institu¬ 
tion of the Southern States; and to-day if you of the North can take 
as an equal the man AAiio has been my slave in the past, 1 in the South 
who instructed him, who civilized him, Avho elevated him, Avill not 
stand back, but I Avill step forward and extend to him the hand of 
felloAvship. 

Are we of the South prejudiced against the negro? In my child¬ 
hood the negro was ray playmate; in my early manhood he Avas my 
confidant; in my mature years he Avas my friend; as my slave he was 
my friend, and often I counseled and adAused with him. He shared 
Avith me the pleasure of my triumphs and sympathized Avith me in 
the hour of my disappointments ; and when the Avar ended and the 
relation of master and servant ceased, he still continued to be my 
friend. Hechosemeasgovernorof theStateof Mississippi. Although 
I espoused the cause of the colored man and asserted his rights before 
the law in Mississiivpi, and was elected by him governor of the State, 
Avhen I was chosen to the Senate the colored man Amted side by side 
with every white man in that Legislature to send me here. Every 
vote of that Legislature, white and black, was cast for me to elect 
me to the position I noAv hold. I did not incur the prejudice of the 
white people there by advocating equality before the law for the 
colored man. The long-continued relation in the South of master 
and servant would IniA^e the effect of removing everything like 
prejudice from the mind of the master. His opinion of the negro 
would assume the form of judgment; it would no loiiger bo painted 
with prejudice. Prejudice would only exist Avith those who were 
unacquainted with the negro; it Avould only continue between races 
that were unknown to each other. Contact would necessarily 
wipeout prejudice. No, it Avas not prejudice; this will not ac¬ 
count for the action of the southern people since the Avar toAvard 
the negro. They held that the northern people intended to insult 
them by the enfranchisement of the colored race; and it was, in 
their minds, an insult which they were quick to resent. They did 
not at once comprehend the subject, but took hold of it as an effort 
on the part of the North to degrade them, and they resented it as such, 
and in their passion they have oftentimes permitted themselves to 
be gnilty of gross injustice to the colored people; they have estranged 
the colored people from them. I trust the estrangement will not be 
of long duration. 

But now let ns go further. You say that yon do not want the 


11 


schools mixed. AVell, I am not in favor of mixing them ; and I con¬ 
tend that this hill doe.s not mix them. There is no mixing in this 
bill. How is it in my State ? There, as I told you, the colored peo- 
]de control; they make the laws; they levy the taxes ; they a^jpoint 
the school boards. The whole machinery is in their hands; yet there 
is not a mixed school in the State of Mississippi, and we have civil 
rights there. Why is it ? Simply because the colored people do not 
desire it; because they believe the interests of both races will be pro¬ 
moted by keeping the schools separate. The colored people, however, 
believe that legislation is necessary by Congress in order to secure 
the advantages of education in some of the States, North as well as 
South. If Congress legislates at all, it must legislate in conformity 
with the requirements of tlie Constitution. Equality before the law 
demands that legislation should not be colored with the distinctions 
of class. In Mississipj)! satisfactory opportunities are provided for all. 
Every child in the State has the beneftt of a common-school education, 
we have no prohibition declared. You have a right to send your child 
to any school you choose. That is the citizen’s right; but it is simply a 
right that the colored people exercise by sending their children to the 
colored school; it is a right that the white people enjoy by sending 
their children to the white school. But a colored man removes, if you 
please, from the State of Mississippi, where he has the government 
in his own hands, where he has been enjoying citizenship in its largest 
and most extended sense, to the State of New Jersey, for example, 
and he finds there that he is not permitted to enter the white schools. 
He finds no colored school; he cannot go to the public school. There 
are no private schools for colored children. What will he do for the 
education of his child ? Will he go without education ? Will he be 
denied the privileges of education simply because he is black? Is it a 
stretch of the power of Congress; is it beyond the power of Congress 
to declare that no State shall deny to the citizen of the United States 
any privilege or immunity or right that belongs to the citizens of the 
United States ? Is not education one of these ? Congress certainly has 
the power to step in and say that this colored child shall have the right 
of admission to the public schools. Is there anything very startling 
in a proposition like this ? Is there anything here that looks like 
overreaching and overstepping the power of Congress to declare that 
the right of admission into the public school shall be awarded to all 
the children of this nation? 

But it is objected that this bill provides that the colored man shall 
be admitted to the theater. Yes; the theater is a licensed institution. 
The policy of the State government is to license theaters. It is held, 
and justly too, that the theater is a place where our intellects are im¬ 
proved, where vice is portrayed, and where virtue is exalted. When 
])roperly conducted it is an institution of instruction that has been 
held by all civilized nations to be refining to the taste and conducive 
to morality; one to be appreciated by intelligent people everywhere 
and fostered and cared for by them. If Ford’s theater here in the city 
of Washington should be assaulted by a mob, it is the duty of the 
Government to i)rotect it. The militia would be called out. The 
colored people largely compose the militia in the District of Colum¬ 
bia. They would have to go there for the purpose of protecting this' 
property of a private citizen, which has been incorporated and is 
called a theater. When you have the power to call upon the citizen 
to go there and protect that property, shall you permit the proprie¬ 
tor to deny this citizen the right of admission if he pays his money 
as other citizens ? Will the Government permit this proprietor who 


12 


holds a license under its authority, to discriminate against the citi¬ 
zen because of the color of cuticle? Shall the citizen be denied the 
privileges of the play because he is black ? Play-actors and theaters 
have been at all times and in all ages favorites of men of culture. 
We find an example of this even in the sacred writings, where the 
Apostle Paul, showing his appreciation of the play-actor, and the 
writer quotes from Euripides, the heathen poet and dramatist, and 
says in language which I will here re])eat for the benefit of my 
friends, “Be not deceived; evil communications corrupt good man¬ 
ners.” 

Let the colored man go to the theater. The colored people from my 
State complain that when they come to this aristocratic city of Wash¬ 
ington they are not permitted to go to the theaters here as other 
people. They complain that when they go to the cities of the North 
they are not treated as other citizens. I seek this legislation for the 
benefit of my northern friends; for I remember that when my wife 
and myself were going on a tour in the North, in the days of slavery, 
and we had reached the border of New York, the privilege of the first- 
class car was denied to our servant, and so much was I annoyed by 
this, finding she would not be permitted to travel with us without the 
inconvenience of being separated in the cars, that I had to send her 
home that she might continue to bo in a State where her rights and 
privileges were recognized. [Laughter.] A mob could have been 
raised in any of the cities or towns through which we passed to seize 
and carry her away that she might be made free. This we did not 
suppose was prompted by humanity or patriotism, but held it to be 
fanaticism. They objected to the slave woman on their soil and 
stood ready to declare her free; but no sooner was she free than she 
was denied the rights of a free person. This we held to be prejudice. 

Objection is made that the bill provides that the colored man shall 
have accommodations at public hotels. If he is denied accommoda¬ 
tions at the j)ublic hotels, Avhere will he get accommodations if ho 
sees proper to travel? When upon a journey, he has no right to go to 
a private house. If the public houses refuse him, then an American 
citizen becomes a pariah in the land which guarantees to him the 
right of travel. The hotels are licensed institutions. AVhen the grant 
of a license is made, the municipality demands of the keeper a bond 
for the faithful performance of his contract. The condition of the 
bond is that he shall provide food and lodging for the traveling 
public. Practically this bill requires him to comply with the con¬ 
ditions of his bond. He cannot be permitted to stand at his door 
and turn away men from the accommodations which he has in his 
bond agreed lie would furnish on account of their complexion. He 
must not be permitted to look into a man’s face to decide by the color 
of his skin whether the food and lodging shall be provided which he 
has obligated himself to furnish. It would be a strange government 
indeed that would tolerate a proceeding like this. The colored people 
make their complaint; they demand legislation as necessary to their 
convenience and comfort in this respect. It is one of the rights and 
privileges that belongs to the citizen. Congress is called upon to 
.legislate, and when it comes to legislate it must legislate, as I before 
said, in conformity with the Constitution—equality before the law. 
The legislation, I repeat, must not be tainted with distinctions of 
class. All that Congress can do, if it does anything, is to see that 
the accommodation shall be extended to all the .people alike. Let 
us be logical and we shall be j ust. 

Mr. President, the injustice that the southern people have done 


13 


tliemsolve-s on the (question now under discussion is one that attaches 
to-day to their welfare and their material prosperity. If in Georgia, 
for example, a colored man is denied his equality before the law, if 
in Tennessee he is denied his equality before the law, may not the 
colored people in my State put in operation the lex talionis f May they 
not legislate and deny the white people in Mis8issii)pi their equality 
before the law ? I ask our friends from North Carolina, Tennessee, 
Georgia, and elsewhere, having suffered as Ave have in a common 
cause, a cause in which our hearts were all enlisted, bound together 
as we are by the memories of the past, sacred to our hearts, a common 
misfortune having overtaken tts, living in that gloom which over¬ 
spread the land at the South when the war ceased, will they imperil 
the prosperity, will they imperil the liberties, will they imperil the 
safety and the well-being of the Avhite peo])le who live in the colored 
States by dclaring that they will deny to the colored man his rights 
under the law in their States ? 

What is to be the effect of legislation of that character ? Suiipose 
the Goternment here in forming the policy of this nation should see 
proper to deny that this legislation shall be extended; vdiat Avould 
be the etfect ? Would not the effect of it be to drive the colored peo¬ 
ple from other States, from the States of the North and the States of 
the South, to Mississippi, Louisiana, South Carolina, and States like 
these where they can get their rights? The colored people have pride, 
and they will not exist under an inferiority recognized by the State 
Legislature. 

They know the fact of their ignorance; but am I here to taunt 
them with their ignorance? Is there a Senator here who stands 
ready to taunt the colored man Avith this ? 

A man’s a man for a’ that. 

It is an ignorance that results from the fact that for tAvo hundred 
years his race Avrithed in the grasp of slaA^ery; and South Carolina, I 
repeat, was no more to blame for that than Avas the State of Massachu¬ 
setts. lu the organization of the Government the majority of the slave¬ 
holding States Avere in favor of terminating at once the African slaA^e 
trade. Georgia and South Carolina were for continuing it. The five 
Eastern States A^oted solidly, in the lead of Massachusetts, for the con¬ 
tinuation of this trade until 1808. By this that barbarous traffic was 
continued, under the protection of the Government, for over tAventy 
years of time. If either section can be charged Avith the responsibility 
of continuing this traffic, it lies Avith the Eastern States. The mer¬ 
chants of Boston sent their ships to the coast of Africa to capture 
and bring to our shores the natives. They did this because they 
could find purchasers for the blacks among the people of the South. 
They Avere not particular as to whether they should bring them in 
families, but they caught them as they Avould have captured Avild 
animals ; they stood not on the order of their taking, but took such 
as they could get, because there was gold in them all. The choice 
ones were Avorth $100, the small ones Avere worth less, and so the 
bar|)arous traffic was kept up for over tAventy years, in opposition to 
the sentiment of the Middle and Southern States, Georgia and South 
Carolina excepted. But I stand not here to cast blame upon 4ny 
section. The spirit of that age tolerated slaA^ery, the Government 
threw around it the strong arm of its protection; but a iieAV light 
has dawned, a new civilization has come, and now the Government 
throAvs its arm, increased in strength, as a shield of protection in 
the maintenance of the freedom of all men of whatever race. 

But, sir, it is said that the colored people taxes, that the 


14 


white people pay all the taxes! As a general rule that is the fact, 
and it is not very remarkable that it is so. The white people have 
never been denied their freedom, while the colored people were slaves 
until the war ceased. Is it remarkable, then, that the property of the 
country should be with the white race ? But let me show you that 
perhaps there is some error existing in the minds of gentlemen on this 
subject. I happen to have before me a message which I delivered to 
the Legislature of the State of Mississippi when I was governor of 
that State. I had gathered a little information on the subject of the 
two races from the time the war ceased. I will present a few figures 
from that message for the consideration of the Senate. In 1870, in 
seven counties of the State of Mississippi, three white, three black, 
and one where the races were about eopially balanced, selected be¬ 
cause presenting a fair average of the State, 69 colored x^eople owned 
.$30,680 worth of real estate ; 3,793 colored people owned personalty 
to the gross value of .$630,860; and 178 owned both realty and person¬ 
alty to the gross value of $220,700; making in all .$882,240. Multiply 
this by ten, there being seventy counties in the State, and it would 
give us as a result, the colored people in the State of Mississippi, in 
1870, owning $8,822,400 worth of property. I think it fair to presume 
that the colored peoj^le of Mississippi are property-owners to the 
extent of $20,000,000 at this time; that the last four years of their 
existence as freemen presenting increased opportunities for the acqui¬ 
sition of wealth, have been more prosi)erous to them than the four 
years following emancipation. They are tax-payers in the State of 
Mississippi. They are not a pauper race there. 

Why, sir, the third man on the list of large cotton-growers in the 
State of Mississippi is a colored man. Without a single drop of 
white blood in his veins, he to-day stands third in the list of cotton- 
growers in that State; and JNIississippi has about as large cotton- 
growers as any State in the Union. I venture to say that he stands 
not less than sixth among the cotton-growers of the Southern States; 
and here I will relate an anecdote of him as illustrative of what we 
may reasonably hope for from men of his class under proper teach¬ 
ings and the promptings of a laudable ambition for the accumulation 
of wealth. He is a very excellent citizen. Finding that a white man 
whom I had appointed a member of the board of supervisors of one 
of the wealthiest counties of the State and an old southerner, too, 
by the way, had been faithless to his tnist in the county in which 
this colored man lived; having the appo'inting power in my hands, I 
was very much in want of a member of the board of supervisors who 
would protect the property-interests of the people of the county of 
Warren, and so I tendered the appointment of president of the board 
of supervisors to this negro, Ben Montgomery. Bon Montgomery 
Avrote me a very polite note, (for he Avrites a good hand and is an in¬ 
telligent man, though he was a slave up to the end of the war,) say¬ 
ing to me that he Avas very much obliged indeed for the compliment 
I had paid'him and for the confidence I had manifested in him in 
tendering him so responsible an office, but stating at the same time 
that his business was such and his duties were such, so engrossed 
Avas he with his private affairs, that he had no time to bestow upon 
public offices, and that he Avould be very much obliged to me if I 
Avould confer the office upon his neighbor, whoso name I will uot 
mention, who had been a shwe-holder when Ben wns a slave, which 
neighbor, Ben assured me, was A^ery anxious for the place. 

Now, Mr. President, I do not wish to detain the Senate, and I will 
not detain it much longer in discussing this question. I have already 


15 


said more than I intended. But I will add a few words in addition. 
The obstinacy, the passive as well as active resistance that the south¬ 
ern people have given to that destiny and to the workings of that 
Providence in whose hands we are, has retarded tlieir prosperity and 
has almost deprived them in the negro States of any voice in their 
government. This action on the j^art of the better classes in the 
South is not due to prejudice, as I said a while ago, but to an inherent 
pride of soul. They believe that the action of the Government in 
the legislation which has characterized reconstruction was intended 
to insult and degrade them, and it is this feeling that has led them 
into a false position and a false relation toward tlie colored man. 

Why, sir, but the other day when the Legislature of the State of 
Mississippi attempted, through the machinations of a class of knaves 
who are in tliat body, to cast an imputation upon me, as far as they 
•could to degrade me in the eyes of the nation, l)y passing a resolution 
asking me to resign my seat, and when tliat resolution came before 
the senate, who rose there to vindicate me against the foul aspersions 
that were attempted? Can I ever forget? The lieutenant-governor 
of the State of Mississippi, whom I had known as a slave in the past, 
a man and a gentleman, came with others of his race to my rescue 
and defended me against the assault, and’co-operatiiig with men of 
my own race, to whom I owe gratitude, the resolution was ignomin- 
iously defeated. 

Do yon tell me that I can feel a prejudice against men like these ? 
Do you tell me that the people of the South who have been associated 
with the colored people in the relation of master and servant from 
childhood, who during the war left their families under their protec¬ 
tion, and when the bloody strife went on trusted with a coiihdence 
that was rarely violated, and who to-day look back in wonder at the 
fidelity of the slave—that these brave Southerners will let the colored 
men have just grounds to charge them with ingratitude ? When the 
North bid them take up arms against us and freedom was the prize, 
when liberty was the watch-word, the colored man stood guard at the 
door of his southern mistress whose husband in the distant battle¬ 
field fought that the slave power might be perpetuated. The prop¬ 
erty of the slave-master was protected by the colored people he left 
behind him. They stood around the bier of the dead confederate sol¬ 
dier, shedding tears of grief from their hearts and mingling with the 
family in all the, sorrows that befell them. Do you tell me, I repeat, 
that Ave feel a prejudice against the colored people ? It is unnatural. 
It is not possible. I say the southern heart does itself an injustice, 
a foul wrong when it stands here to declare men like these un¬ 
worthy to be free—that men like these should be denied the fullest 
measure of equality before the laAV. 

* I see before me the honorable Senator from South Carolina, [Mr. 
Robertson,] who was a slave-holder in the i)ast, and avIio stood 
forth in the State of South Carolina, Avhich he noAV so ably represents, 
from the close of the war to the present hour the friend of the colored 
man. He stands to day Avith all his heart urging the passage of this 
bill. He belieAms with me that it will give quiet to his people, that 
through it he can remove those obstacles that have stood in the way 
-of good government in South Carolina. 

Sir, whv is it that Ave hear the cry of distress coming up from that 
:8tricken and afflicted State to-day ? It is because the South Caro¬ 
linians, acting upon the principle I have just now sought to describe, 
have Avronged themselves in turning their backs upon the colored 
people, and haAm opened an easy way for the intriguing whites to 


16 


Trin the coniidence of the credulous colored peojile, who prize liberty 
and equality above every other consideratiou. The white man, who 
seeks to despoil the State, who designs the robbery and x>lunder of 
the people, holds out to the negro the promise of the civil-rights bill, 
of equality before the law. He points to the southern white, who 
refuses this ; who stands aloof, and declares he will regard this bill 
as a b^ll of abominations. Is it not reasonable that the colored man 
should act as he does ? You cannot hope for colored support while 
you withhold from the colored man that legislation whicii is neces¬ 
sary to the assertion of his right as a citizen. The low white dema¬ 
gogue will put his arms around the negro’s neck, whisper love and 
civil rights, and while he does so slip his hand into his iiocket and 
rob him of his money. [Laughter.] He leaves his victim with the 
injunction, “Remember the civil-rights bill!” Because the colored 
man will not turn and denounce this thief as a robber lie is denounced 
as a fool and as being himself dishonest. It must be remembered 
that this intriguing, dishonest white man has charmed the colored 
man with , the visions of happiness to be enjoyed under the workings 
of the civil-rights bill. He yields to the present demands of the 
robber in the hojie that for all this the coveted inize of civil riyhis 
will be delivered to hin> bodily by and by. All men of every race 
despise inferiority. Let us not lind fault with the colored man that 
he holds his liberty and bis eipiality before the law aliove eveiy other 
earthly consideration. The liberty and ecpiality of the colored people 
is the talismanic word of the adventurer vdio comes South to rob us. 
By this our country has been plundered, and unless we can end this 
fruitful source of licensed larceny the downward speed of the States 
south wdll not be arrested until ruin shall hold carnival over the 
fairest portion of this great nation. 

How often have I heard the old master remark the fact that in every¬ 
thing except in the use of the ballot his old slaves reposed in him the 
most implicit confidence! In trouble, the colored man comes with his 
story of distress; when in doubt, ho apidies for his judgment; when 
trespassed upon, the colored man comes with his appeal for help ; but 
when the day for voting comes he withdraws from the in’esence of 
the old master and seeks advice of the knave who stands ready with 
promises of the happy day of civil rifjhts. 

How easy the solution of the secret! The old master denies the 
colored man his equality before the law; he withholds from him 
his civil-rUjliis hill; he abuses the republican party because it is 
pledged to grant tlxe coveted prize. Is it strange that the colored 
man will not take his advice, possessed as he is of the purposes of the 
old master to thwart the hopes of himself and his posterity in achiev¬ 
ing the triumph of his soul— his equality before the laiv? Come and let 
us reason like men who realize what the revolution hath wrought, 
who realize the S])irit of the age in which we live, who can discern 
the hand of Providence as we follow destiny. 

The colored people, intent upon their liberty, Avatchful of it, and 
hearing the cry that it is being assaulted, turn naturally to the men 
who promise to guard it, and thus it is that the men who are ever 
ready with promises are enabled to obtain olfice whereby they rob 
and plunder the State. It is not the colored people that have plun¬ 
dered the Southern States; it is not the colored peo]3le that have 
wronged the Southern States. Not a colored man in the South to-day 
stands enriched at the sacrifice of any of the white people’s property. 
They have been used, I knoAv, as instruments; and it is precisely the 
want of this civil-rights bill and the opposition to measures like this 


/ 


17 


that have enabled these knaves that wear the skin of white men 
to rob the South. It is through these instrumentalities that they 
have been able to work all the wrongs they have inflicted upon us. 

I would remove them out of the way. I want to make this law so 
broad that it shall reach into every avenue of society, touch every 
man there is in the land, and lift him ux) to the dignity of a citizen 
of the United States, and say to him, “The jn'otection of the Govern¬ 
ment rests upon you.” Then, sir, we shall have peace, and then these 
men can no longer stand between the white peox)le and the colored 
peo^de. 

But I wish to say, lest I may be misunderstood, that we have received 
valuable men from the Northern States who have become citizens of 
the Southern States, and we hope to see their numbers augmented. 
When these have obtained ofiice we have not been wronged; but such 
men find difficulty in holding positions when a work like this is left 
unfinished, while the demagogue abounds in promises and the colored 
man’s imagination is the theater for action. Pass this bill with a 
careful regard that it confers every right and you at once strip from 
the hand of the white knave, whether he came from the North or is, 
as many of the meanest are, “ to the manner born,” the wand with 
which he moves the colored masses in the South. Good men will then 
come together, honest men of both races will join hands in the brother¬ 
hood of political equality, and our State governments will stand re- * 
deemed from the adventurer whose presence is a standing insult to 
free government. 

Remove the barrier that now separates the political fellowship of 
the races and we will be friends. Give quiet to the minds of the 
colored people ; inspire confidence in your truth and political fair 
dealing, and he will at once join you in driving every unworthy 
white man from office! 

But now I come to exjness my surj^rise at the language of the amend¬ 
ment offered by my honorable friend from Massachusetts, [Mr. Bout- 
well.] I heard from him the other day expressions that I did not 
expect to hear from Massachusetts, and I see in his amendment words 
that I did not expect to come from that State. Ah, sir, we are not 
satisfied with this amendment. When the revolution had ceased, 
when the fiat had gone forth, in the hour in which the victory was 
proclaimed, your aristocracy in Massachusetts was swex)t down as 
was the aristocracy in the South. But here comes the Senator from 
Massachusetts and proposes an amendment to the bill. He moves to 
strike out in section 1, lines 7, 8, and 9, the following words : 

And also of common schools and public institutions of learning or benevolence, 
supported, in -whole or in part, by general taxation. 

And insert in lieu thereof: 

And also of every common school and public institution of learning or benevo¬ 
lence, endo-wed by the United States, or that may hereafter be endowed by any 
State, or supported, in whole or in part, by public taxation. 

Ah, yes, “hereafter!” with your institutions finished, with your en¬ 
dowments already made I Do you seek thus artfully to deprive the 
citizens of my State from coming to your public schools ? Massa¬ 
chusetts cannot even here, with all its power, with all its eloquence, 
and its subtlety, escape the consequences of this legislation. We 
propose to strike out, and before I leave the floor I shall ask that the 
word “hereafter” be stricken out of that amendment, so that the 
revolution shall be recognized in all its workings in its full scope 
and power. Let there be no heretofore or no hereafter so far as lib- 

2 A 


18 


erty is concerned, but now and forever let equality before tlie law be 
maintained. 

I beg the honorable Senator to quiet bis imagination if lie supxioses 
that he can maintain his aristocracy of education in the State of 
Massachusetts. We intend that the colored youth shall go iuto every 
school that there is in tiiis broad land that he sees jiroper to enter, 
when it is suxiported and endowed by the Government of this great 
nation, or when it is supported by taxation. That is the demand of 
the colored iieople, and it is a demand that will be realized. While 
I sjieak to-day, there stand eight hundred thousand colored men 
at my back. They aref united on this s^iecialty, and they are able 
to work that legislation which they deem projier and demand at the 
hands of this Congress, and they will do it. If you say your Con¬ 
stitution is not sufficient, if the courts of the country shall say that 
the Constitution stands a barrier, these eight hundred thousand men 
will make it known to the nation that it shall be made sufficient to 
answer all the ends of equal government and justice to every man 
in the land. If you want to know what is to be the destiny of this 
nation, look not to the Constitution, but look into the faces of the 
people. The pe^ple in a revolution like this, for the revolution still 
goes forward, trample down constitutions and they disappear as flax 
before the flame. The demands of the people of this free Govern¬ 
ment are not to be turned aside ; they are to be listened to ; and 
I say to you, sir, that this demand will be heard. Having felt their 
strength, I realize the power that lies in the hands of the masses of 
the American x^eople. When reconstruction was decreed the Consti¬ 
tution gave no warrant for the enactment, but the people spake and 
the Constitution responded, “ Here am I; the power is given! ” 

Sir, my heart yearns for peace. I look with a sad heart ujjon the 
poor, stricken South. Torn by faction she Ijes bleeding at your feet. 
Robbed of her treasure, despoiled of her beauty, her x)eoj)le grope 
their way in the gloom of x>olitical midnight. May the sunshine of 
hope once more be vouchsafed to my native land, that the hearts of my 
countrymen shall be made glad in the enjoyment of that jirosperity 
which industry will bring and which good government will jn’eserve. 

The colored x)eox)le of my State demand the passage of this bill. I 
yield to that demand. My refusal would excite them to anger ; they 
would keenly feel the injustice and wrong. I bend gracefully to their 
will. My heart tells me they ask no more than I would demand were 
our jiositions reversed. Can I refuse to give that which I hold to be 
a right ? No. Mr. President, I occupy the position of one who aiiijeals 
to the colored people of my Statp. I have in the past and shall again 
ax)peal to them to deliver the State from the body of that death which 
is now enthroned at her capitol. I shall appeal to them to lift the 
cloud and let the sunlight in, and so apx^ealing to them I must give them 
an earnest of my sincerity of soul, give them the right of travel, the 
right of the hotel, the right of the school-house, the right of the col¬ 
lege, the right of the university ; and, finally, every right, including 
the right of burial, guaranteed by the Constitution to the citizen of 
the United States. 


Mr. Boutwell replied in advocacy of his amendment, and was responded to by— 
Mr. ALCORN, who said: 

I desire to speak just now, for it would be more aj)propriate now 
than at another time, in answer to the Senator from Massachusetts. 

I will say to him that I shall, when it is in order, decline to accept 
his amendment. I will state the jioint I make in regard to Dartmouth 
College, and it is one that I think is well taken. He claims that Dart- 



19 


month College received its endowment under a certain contract or 
compact that existed at the time the institution was established and 
that the amendment which I propose would be a violation of the 
contract. I contend as a legal proposition that it would work no 
such efiect. If the amendment to the Constitution of the* United 
States was constitutionally enacted, if that amendment has binding 
force to-day, it works its way to Dartmouth College and to every 
other institution in the country, and no previous contract that may 
have been entered into by Dartmouth College will stand in the way of 
the full scope and workings of the amendment of the Constitution. 
There is no prohibition in the Constitution of the United States that 
contracts shall not be impaired. Where do you find in the Constitu¬ 
tion of the United States that contracts shall not be impaired by 
Congress? There is a provision that the States shall not pass laws 
impairing the obligation of contracts; but cannot the Go v^ernment of 
the United States by an amendment to the Constitution change the 
form and theory of this Government altogether if it is the will of the 
people to do so ? And can you stand on any constitution of any 
State in this Union, with the supreme powet in the Government of 
the United States established as it is, and hold up anj’^contract or any 
constitutional guarantees that may have been derived from any State 
authority ? You cannot do it. Therefore I say that I demand for 
the colored youth of the South that he shall make his way into Dart¬ 
mouth College, that college which stands to-day the cherished idol, 
and properly so, too, of the honorable Senator from Massachusetts. 
You must give it all its force ; you cannot stop the workings of this 
great torrent. It will not be denied admission when it gets to the 
door of Dartmouth College. It must go north and make its way there 
as well as work its way to the humble school-house that sits at the 
foot of the hill. All distinctions in this Government are broken down ; 
wo are one people; and ^Dartmouth College has 'no rights, no privi¬ 
leges, no immunities above the humblest cottage school-house that 
there is in all the broad land. 

But now a word with regard to the point the honorable Senator 
makes in answer to me upon the action of Massachusetts with refer¬ 
ence to the slave trade. The Senator will find—and I think I am not 
mistaken—that every New England State Amted with South Carolina 
and Georgia to extend the slave trade up to 1808; that Virginia and 
North Carolina and all the Middle States, then slave States, voted 
against it. That is my recollection of the vote on that occasion and 
the condition in which the States at that time stood. Massachusetts 
stood by South Carolina. The New England States were then engaged 
in the slave trade, and voted that this trade, hedd now to have been 
a barbarism Avhereby the African was seized in his OAvn natiA^e land 
and brought to our shores and sold intoslaA^ery, should continue until 
1808. Captured, enslaved, and sold for gold to the ])eople of the South¬ 
ern States as saAUiges, enslaved and sold to us, barbarians, you said 
they were, Ave civilized them, we christianized them; and Avhen the 
war was ended and they Averemade free you declared that they were 
so far civilized, so far christianized as to be entitled to be made citi¬ 
zens of this great nation. The Avord was spoken; the deed was done. 
Now, as citizens of this nation, I claim that these colored youths of 
the South, the children of the slaves that you brought from Africa in 
your ships, our recent slaves, shall be admitted to matriculate in 
Dartmouth College and sit down by the son of the Senator from 
Massachusetts his equal before the law, his peer as a candidate for the 
honors of that ancient and renowned institution of learning. 

He who of old did rend the oak dreamed not of the rebound. ' 


o 


CONGRESS 




